The Suffolk Company v. Hayden was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865. The dispute arose when the defendant, George W. Hayden, had purchased land from one of his creditors who held a mortgage on it and then attempted to sell that same property to another party for more than he had paid for it. The plaintiff argued that this constituted fraud and sought an injunction against him from selling or transferring any title to the land until they were fully compensated for their debt owed by Hayden. In its ruling, the court found in favor of the plaintiff and granted them an injunction restraining Hayden from conveying or disposing of any interest in said lands without first paying off all debts due them as secured by mortgage upon said premises. This decision established precedent which has been used ever since to protect creditors’ rights with respect to mortgaged properties being sold without proper compensation being made beforehand

In The Suffolk Company v. Hayden, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and was therefore voidable by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts which violate statutes are generally unenforceable due to their illegality, there is an exception for cases where both parties have acted in good faith and without knowledge of the law's prohibition against such agreements. In these instances, he argued that enforcing the agreement would serve justice better than allowing one party to take advantage of another's ignorance or mistake regarding legal matters. He concluded his dissent by noting that if courts were allowed to invalidate contracts based on violations of laws known only to them but not necessarily known by all citizens then they would become "the arbiters" rather than interpreters of those laws - something which he believed went beyond their proper role as judges.